Friday, October 14, 2005

I Costumi di Wasp

On Tim O'Neil On the New Yorker On Comics

If you happen to read the Peter Schjedahl piece on comics in this week's New Yorker, do yourself a favor and read this thoughtful rejoinder from Tim O'Neil. Schjedahl makes some good points, and champions the books he mentions for solid reasons, but his viewpoint--and conclusions about the suppposed limited potential of the form--seem born of serious ignorance of comics beyond the ones he's seen from major publishers. At any rate, O'Neil explains it better, plus he got there first, so go read him.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Swift-Boating George Will

The Rude Pundit has his charms, but the endlessly cynical Billmon is perhaps the best pure writer--and one of the clearest thinkers--among liberal political bloggers. This post on the Bush Administration's war against the GOP over the Miers nomination is no exception. In just a few paragraphs, it thoroughly explains the reasons for, and stakes of the intercine war on the right over Miers, and by extension, Bush's authority for the next three years.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Who Am I?

Comic book writer Geoff Johns answers every last question (187 of them) asked by fans at the comic news site Newsarama--including this one from me:

Q: Infinite Crisis is billed as a 20th anniversary sequel to 1985's Crisis on Infinite Earths. CoIE was designed to help DC sell books by streamlining a 30-year-plus "multiple earths" framework that was perceived at the time, rightly or wrongly, as a stumbling block to new readers who voted with their dollars for the streamlined Marvel universe.

My question: aside from boosting sales (a valid enough goal for a publisher) is there any perceived structural or tonal problem with the current DC universe that Infinite Crisis is designed to correct or modify, as did CoIE? If so, what? I've noticed that the tone of a number of DC's flagship titles has seemed somehow off for quite a while – Batman is way too unpleasant, Superman is often too indecisive and whiny. I know DC has said IC won't junk continuity, but does IC exist to readjust the "feel" of the DCU in the same way CoIE adjusted its "reality"?

GJ: Wow. You are so much closer to something than you know…who are you?

Who am I? I am someone who has no idea what he is apparently so close to. Guess I'll have to read to find out.

Judgments Rendered, 5¢

Language tics that make me madder than they would if I were a well-adjusted person who didn't let stupid shit eat away at my guts like a cancer:

The borrowed-from-the-military phrase "on the ground": as in "the situation on the ground", "boots on the ground", "facts on the ground", "senior aide on the ground", etc. In any of these instances, simply delete the phrase "on the ground" and you tell me what meaning has been lost. No, I'll tell you: none fucking whatsoever.

"crisp" decision-making: the reason cited why politicians can't ever turn over pertinent papers about their evil secret meetings with corrupt oil barons, or horrible manchurian candidates they've nominated to lifetime positions of massive social, political and cultural up-fucking; because decision making is apparently like a head of goddamn iceberg lettuce, which will wilt if left on the counter where senators might see it. Boy, that Bush guy's decisions all suck historic levels of ass, but at least they're "crisp" because he makes them in absolute, cross my heart and hope to die, you can all eat me secrecy!

So Much Better

The best of the 80's dance rock revivalists (is that damning with faint praise?), Franz Ferdinand don't make albums as much as they make greatest hits collections. The new record, You Could Have It So Much Better, starts off at a thousand miles an hour with their best song yet, The Fallen, and never lets up. The leadoff single, Do You Want To?, is dumb enough to be be a genuine hit, maybe, and the rest of the disc is filled with alternate universe smash singles. Frankly, I find this record preferrable to the debut, which had a handful of songs stronger than what you'll find here (The Fallen excepted), but as a whole left me a bit cold. This time, while the highs aren't quite as high (The Fallen excepted) the low spots aren't as low.

Many reviews of the new FF have centered on whether or not they beat the so-called "sophomore slump," which is one of the laziest tropes in record reviewing. It's also a non-existent phenomenon, The Strokes' Room On Fire notwithstanding. There are just as many terrible debuts and third albums as second albums. If a bad band follows up a shitty first record with an equally shitty second one, have they beaten the slump? And there are far too many second records which stand as an artist's signal achievement: Nevermind. You're Living All Over Me. Doolittle. Axis Bold As Love. Neil Young came back from his uneven debut with the brilliant Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere. Dylan went from promising folk cover artist to Freewheelin' Bob.

But what I really want to know is, what does Mattie think? With the Sox done for the year, I assume he has more time to ponder the rock.